Area air defense is very limited for vessels other than the 052C. For the Shtil, while maximum range is 32km, engagement ranges against crossing missile targets is only up to 6km. Number of shot attempts depend on range at closest point and speed of missile(s) etc. As Grand Danois said, do not simple mindedly look only at maximum kinematic ranges but consider geometry. For a good idea of how this works, try reading Naval Operations Analysis, 2nd Ed. Under the Anti-Air warfare section page 228, there's an exact solution to this scenario.
About the aircraft carrier plan of China
- Thread starter bjskyhorse
- Start date
- Status
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Dunno. That's why my statement was so vague. I do see a medium carrier with large, heavy in maintenance, aircraft. So "not generous" is my guesstimate. If you take f.i. the superhornets, then they are specifically built to achieve high sortie rates on aircraft carriers. I have not heard the SU-27 derivates should have the same attribute. It might be that some of the other posters here have a more precise estimate.
If you consider that a percentage of all the carriers sorties will be used for fleet defence, and that percentage will be high if in striking distance of Taiwan, then not much is left for offensive ops.
Add in the assets you need just to protect the carrier, AEW, ASW frigates, AWDs, subs, etc... All of a sudden you're making a major effort to launch a few strike packages.
You end up with the carrier as a liability - not an asset. All the effort going to protect the carrier is drawn away from the main event - just to launch those few strikes.
Plus the actual risk of getting it sunk.
You might just not see a PLA-N carrier around at all, even if they have one, in a serious war with Taiwan.
Last edited:
Taiwan is too complex a situation (in terms of hostile action between PRC and ROC), so a carrier might not provide a capability that will justify the risk, as you stated.
However PRC is not going to stay confined to the region, they will move for a much greater role in this world, they will need military resources for this purpose (along with a lot of other factors).
Something like the capability of providing absolute security to nations like Iran and Myanmar from outside interference in their affairs and hence protecting their interests in these nations (natural resources, diplomatic interests) etc.
or forcing other nations into cooperation through military power, utilizing hostile means to resolve disputes, etc.
So In absolute layman’s terms, all one can achieve is a carrier based air cover/warning/ASW capability for the fleet, depending on the threat faced. And the additional capability this might provide over the ASW/AEW/AAW capability of a well evolved (technically) fleet does not justify adding a carrier into the fleet? (Forgive any poor usage of naval lingo/Jargon).
By the time a carrier group is operational and has spent enough time to be confident enough to mount offensive operations, the whole game might change, evolution of technology is the hardest thing to predict.
Especially when no ones talking (China and the games they play).
Risk of things (shi#) happening will be in every scenario, justification for taking it might change.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
@ funtz
I am commenting on use in a Taiwan event only.
I am commenting on use in a Taiwan event only.
Well, unless US starts building diesel subs again, Taiwan has a problem.
HH-9 can definitely engage low level missiles at OTH range. HH-16 and shtil can both engage low level missiles at a decent range within the radar horizon. And since HH-9 and HH-16 are the future of PLAN ships, I would say air defence will become a strength over the next 10 years.
clearly, carriers are for other purposes, but that doesn't mean they will sit idle in a conflict. For example, they could be protecting sea lane during the conflict, to keep the oil supplies coming and such. Otherwise, China would really have to beg the Russians.
ROC does not have them.
and you have the shtil-1 figure. Other than the fact that HH-16 is not the same as shtil, you still might want to check shtil-2 performance.
this is the complete shtil-1 performance
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9316/shtildata2fm6.jpg
and shtil-2 improved areas
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4443/shtildatacr6.jpg
I was referring to the 9M317ME, which is an upgrade over the 9M38M2 you are referring to. The figure I gave (32km) was set by the limits of the Front Dome illuminator, but it's actual kinematic max range is 42km. The max range of the 9M38M2 is actually 30km. So with the 9M38M2 will actually have a lower range against a crossing target than the 6km of the 9M317ME.
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0193.html
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0193.html
This bit came from Jane's Naval Weapons Systems Issue 40.
one that can target ships.
did you actually figure out what the figures I uploaded are talking about? What I posted had nothing to do with what PLAN ships had, but rather illustration of shtil's performance against sea-skimmers and how it's engaged.
As for your crossing target figure, it's actually for 9M38M1. It's stated in that picture, but also shown here. 18 KM for crossing target that's aircraft and 6 km for missile. Although that's not too far off vs supersonic sea-skimmers range.
https://savage.nps.edu/svn/nps/Sava... 7 Missile Launcher/2 SA-N-7 Gadfly 3K 90.doc
plus, 054A has a whole new set of sensors compared to Sov, so some of the problems that the FCRs have vs crossing targets might be reduced with the newer FCRs.
Last edited:
I don't really bother, because I don't know the source. I don't really trust Chinese sources anyway. Jane's may be wrong sometimes, but I'd take them over some obscure Chinese source anyday.
The article also isn't specific in which model is used for the figures. But yes, I referenced two articles and got mixed up. You'd notice that the range for the 9M38M2 is also given as 30km and not 38km?
The 32km max range as a result of the FCR constraint, however, refers to the 9M317ME as shown in the other article and only applies to max range. When against crossing targets, the kinematic performance of the missile should be the limitation. Since the 9M38M2 doesn't feature a greater range than the 9M38M1, then the 6km max range against crossing targets shouldn't change. Although with higher acceleration and speed, the system can probably engage more targets.
Jane is wrong very often.
But that's beside the point. The Chinese ships don't use 9M38M2, they use either 9M38M1 for 136/137 or 9M317 for 138/139/168/169 or HH-16 for the 054As. The idea is to show that shtil can destroy a sea-skimmer with one missile. That's what the importance of test results. Anyhow, I will let you have the last word, since this is getting pointless.
Chinese sources any different?
What a meaningless statement. Give me a rifle and a golden BB and I can destroy a sea skimmer too. The question is, what are the chances of me being able to do so? Let's see.
"The double-round kill probability against aircraft ranges from 0.81 to 0.96 and against missiles 0.43 to 0.86. "
2 missiles expended against a crossing target gives only a max of 0.86 Pk, with the 0.86 figure probably for incoming targets as opposed to stressing crossing targets. Add to that the low ROF for the launchers, any area air defense capability is very limited.
Can anyone read Japanese here? http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/aozora5103/Yak-44E.html
I also found this picture of Adm. Kuznetsov CV. The Sov.DDG is in the foreground. The PLAN CV group will look very similar!
I also found this picture of Adm. Kuznetsov CV. The Sov.DDG is in the foreground. The PLAN CV group will look very similar!
peterAustralia
Member
There has been a lot of rubbish in this thread, so will try and make a couple little points without getting into bitchiness.
China's economy is growing rapidly and with one billion people it has the human resources to man people intensive areas like a numerically large army or a numerically large navy.
I suspect that China wants to walk before it can run. Thus before exerting naval influence thousands and thousands of miles from it's shores will start in it's coastal areas. As coastal areas are covered by land based aircraft China has no need for a carrier in the short term. A carrier is expensive to build and to operate and is a high priority target and can be sunk.
In the longer term China no doubt will like to have a carrier of a few of them. Thus there is a lot of logic in building one carrier now and using it for a few years. The reason for having one is to gain operating experience in the thousands of simple operations that go into operating a carrier. Thus I would assert that it makes sense for China to have a carrier, not for the military advantage in the short term but for the medium term.
China's economy is growing and will continue to grow. They are investing in the basics, from which their economy can further expand. Little things like ports and steel factories, roads, bridges, railways etc. By getting the basics in place this allows for future growth to continue. China's economy is profitable because of it's low labour costs. As China's economy improves it's labour costs will increase, however as they are starting from such a low base they can increase by a large amount before it starts to greatly affect business profitability.
Additionally China's one child policy of last 30 years will reduce impact of meeting demand from providing services to ever more people. Contrast this to India which has a demographic time bomb awaiting in it's population demographic. Thus I can see China' GDP per person increasing a lot whilst India's will not increase by as much.
As to China's military it can be seen that they are increasing in terms of size and technological skill. Yes they still have a long way to go but they are getting better every year. Combine this with a large country and it becomes economic in term of 'economy of scale' to invest in expensive projects like developing strike aircraft or developing air to air missiles etc
Last but not least, with computers getting ever more powerful, missiles, planes ships can be equipped with very complex and powerful computers. This technology is available to China. With time China will be able to harness this and learn the software to make complex weapons indigenously. Yes it may take decades but they are getting there.
peter
China's economy is growing rapidly and with one billion people it has the human resources to man people intensive areas like a numerically large army or a numerically large navy.
I suspect that China wants to walk before it can run. Thus before exerting naval influence thousands and thousands of miles from it's shores will start in it's coastal areas. As coastal areas are covered by land based aircraft China has no need for a carrier in the short term. A carrier is expensive to build and to operate and is a high priority target and can be sunk.
In the longer term China no doubt will like to have a carrier of a few of them. Thus there is a lot of logic in building one carrier now and using it for a few years. The reason for having one is to gain operating experience in the thousands of simple operations that go into operating a carrier. Thus I would assert that it makes sense for China to have a carrier, not for the military advantage in the short term but for the medium term.
China's economy is growing and will continue to grow. They are investing in the basics, from which their economy can further expand. Little things like ports and steel factories, roads, bridges, railways etc. By getting the basics in place this allows for future growth to continue. China's economy is profitable because of it's low labour costs. As China's economy improves it's labour costs will increase, however as they are starting from such a low base they can increase by a large amount before it starts to greatly affect business profitability.
Additionally China's one child policy of last 30 years will reduce impact of meeting demand from providing services to ever more people. Contrast this to India which has a demographic time bomb awaiting in it's population demographic. Thus I can see China' GDP per person increasing a lot whilst India's will not increase by as much.
As to China's military it can be seen that they are increasing in terms of size and technological skill. Yes they still have a long way to go but they are getting better every year. Combine this with a large country and it becomes economic in term of 'economy of scale' to invest in expensive projects like developing strike aircraft or developing air to air missiles etc
Last but not least, with computers getting ever more powerful, missiles, planes ships can be equipped with very complex and powerful computers. This technology is available to China. With time China will be able to harness this and learn the software to make complex weapons indigenously. Yes it may take decades but they are getting there.
peter
Your analysis is over simplistic and ignores the challenges China faces. China has made incredible stride econmoically but has a number of problesm that could seriously undermine the ability of China to continue this growth.
China still has a peasant run rural economy which is inequitable and inefficient according to some comentators (have a look at "Will the boat sink the water" by Chen Guidi and Wu Chuntao). China cannot feed itself and must import food. In so far as cheap labour is concerned China is being squeezed by the likes of Vietnam and other rising SE Asain nations (who are cheaper) while at the same time cost of materials is rising as is the cost of labour. Given many of China's industies are over manufacuturing in respect of demand these plants must export to remain viable and margins ar dropping because of the increase in labour, infrastuture and material costs. this is before we start looking at IP issue which are very likley to bite China if 'copied' goods start to seriously adversely effect the industies of the countries they export to.
The car industy is the one industry where growth is sustain by massive internal demand but thi is driven by a growing middle class whihc in itself is driving up labour costs. If economic growht is stopped or severely curtailed then life will get very interesting.
The one child policy also has its problems in that China does not have a developed superanauation or pension system in the same manner as many
western countriesand traditioanlly family cared for their parents and grand parents. With only one child this lplaces a burndent onthe child that thye may be unwilling or unable to support. The policy will result in ZPG and an again populations wht all the burdens this palces on health and welfare systems and this will be worse where they are not fully developed (you hae to look beyond the major centres in this regard).
The banking system has had serious problem ist non performing loans but claims it ahs these under control wiht about 7 to 9% non performing (about 160 billion worth) depending on which source you look at. However, three times that number (another 21%) are listed as 'special mention loans' which appear to have the potential to go bad (up to 480 million). If even some of these go back is a considerable amount of cash removed fromt he finiancial system that cannot be recovered.
Evironmental issues present a significant issue for china's long term viabiliyt as well and these are not effectively being addressed at this time.
from what I read, it does have problems, but no where near as much as you state. And the amount of money it spends on military as a fraction of overall government spending hasn't changed over the past few years. So, there hasn't been this huge surge in spending as everyone thinks. Basically, it has the economic growth to sustain the naval growth.
I am not saying it cannot but there is a strong body of opinion that will see the current rate of growth slow down dramatically in the next 5 years and you would hope fiscal planning would take that into account. From an outside view this does not appear to be the case at this point in time but things may change after the Olympics. IMV will need to plan for the major challenges that will really come home in the next 20 years in respect of aging population and environmental impacts not to mention increasing reliance on imported foodstuffs.
actually, it seems like at least for the period of 2011-2015, the ratio of military spending to overall spending is actually coming down. And I don't expect this huge slow down either. From what I read, the growth rates will remain over 6% over the next 25 years. And to me, even that is underestimating slightly because the Chinese GDP growth has consistently outgrown the estimates. They were targeting 8% growth for this year and got over 11%.
A lot of companies are relying onthe 20 plus year forecast. Equally others are suggesting 5 years will be closer to the truth. Only time will tell.
- Status